Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imaratsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11629 of 2023
(IMARATSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 19-12-2023
Shri Anand Purohit - Advocate for appellant.
Alok Sharma - Panel Lawyer for State.
Heard o n I.A. No. 22069 of 2023, first application under Section 389
(1) of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 12
- Rajendra@Ravindra.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 25.8.2023 passed by
T hird Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No.03/2018, whereby the appellant No. 12 has been convicted
and sentenced under Section 148 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
six months with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 325/149 of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section
307/149 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of
Rs.2000/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the present appellant ignoring the evidence available on
record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that a cross-case at Crime
No.94/2017 was also registered against the complainant party and on perusal of
both the cases, it is apparent that complainant party is the aggressor who
committed murder of Balram after surrounding him and inflicting grievous
injuries. Further submission is that injured of this case has inflicted fatal injury
on Balram. After four days present FIR was lodged for which no plausible
explanation has been given. It is further argued that as per prosecution story
appellant assaulted injured with a sword. However, during investigation a stick
has been recovered from the possession of appellant. No injury of sword is
found on the body of the injured. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that present appellant has already served three months incarceration
out of total jail sentence. Present criminal appeal is likely to take long time to
conclude and the appellant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions
which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to suspend the jail
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No. 12.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments rendered by learned counsel for the appellants
as well as facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits
of the case, I.A.No.22069 of 2023 is hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of
fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail
sentence of appellant No. 12 - Rajendra @ Ravindra shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail. The appellant is further directed to mark
his appearance before the Office of this Court o n 30.01.2024 and on
subsequent dates given by the Office in this regard, till final disposal of this
appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
Rohit
